If the choice of attainable policy is between printing money and issuing debt, I know where my preference lies.hanelyp wrote:Anyone who thinks that would be a good idea should be allowed nowhere near handling other people's money.choff wrote:More people in the banking profession are talking about having the government directly print money and distribute it ... , as an attempt to get the economy going again.
The Magnitude Of The Problem
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
From 'The Bradbury Pound' by Justin Walker. His uncle was a Bilderberg attendee.
The Great War And The Debt-free Bradbury Treasury Note:
Three weeks ago, as part of my ongoing research into the banking elite, I came across a fascinating book entitled The Financiers and the Nation by the Rt. Hon. Thomas Johnston, P.C., ex-Lord Privy Seal. It was written in 1934 and republished in 1994 by Ossian Publishers Ltd.
The text of this quite remarkable and rare book is available here.
In Chapter 6, entitled ‘Usury on the Great War’, I’ve selected the following paragraphs which I believe are both shocking and self-explanatory:
“
WHEN the whistle blew for the start of the Great War in August 1914 the Bank of England possessed only nine millions sterling of a gold reserve, and, as the Bank of England was the Bankers' Bank, this sum constituted the effective reserve of all the other Banking Institutions in Great Britain.
The bank managers at the outbreak of War were seriously afraid that the depositing public, in a panic, would demand the return of their money. And, inasmuch as the deposits and savings left in the hands of the bankers by the depositing public had very largely been sunk by the bankers in enterprises which, at the best, could not repay the borrowed capital quickly, and which in several and large-scale instances were likely to be submerged altogether in the stress of war and in the collapse of great areas of international trade, it followed that if there were a widespread panicky run upon the banks, the banks would be unable to pay and the whole credit system would collapse, to the ruin of millions of people.
Private enterprise banking thus being on the verge of collapse, the Government (Mr. Lloyd George at the time was Chancellor of the Exchequer) hurriedly declared a moratorium, i.e. it authorized the banks not to pay out (which in any event the banks could not do), and it extended the August Bank Holiday for another three days. During these three or four days when the banks and stock exchanges were closed, the bankers held anxious negotiation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And one of them has placed upon record the fact that 'he (Mr. George) did everything that we asked him to do.' When the banks reopened, the public discovered that, instead of getting their money back in gold, they were paid in a new legal tender of Treasury notes (the £1 notes in black and the 10s. notes in red colours). This new currency had been issued by the State, was backed by the credit of the State, and was issued to the banks to prevent the banks from utter collapse. The public cheerfully accepted the new notes; and nobody talked about inflation.
To return, however, to the early war period, no sooner had Mr. Lloyd George got the bankers out of their difficulties in the autumn of 1914 by the issue of the Treasury money, than they were round again at the Treasury door explaining forcibly that the State must, upon no account, issue any more money on this interest free basis; if the war was to be run, it must be run with borrowed money, money upon which interest must be paid, and they were the gentlemen who would see to the proper financing of a good, juicy War Loan at 31/2 per cent, interest, and to that last proposition the Treasury yielded. The War was not to be fought with interest-free money, and/or/with conscription of wealth; though it was to be fought with conscription of life. Many small businesses were to be closed and their proprietors sent overseas as redundant, and without any compensation for their losses, while Finance, as we shall see, was to be heavily and progressively remunerated.
Emergency Bradbury Treasury Notes (printed only on one side)
The real values of the private bankers and the City of London have been exposed for all to see. Whilst hundreds of thousands of British soldiers were dying on the killing fields of Flanders and elsewhere doing what they saw as their patriotic duty, British bankers, safely out of danger and not sharing the appalling conditions on the Western Front, were only interested in one thing – how to make obscene profits from Britain’s desperate efforts to win the war. To say that the private bankers and the City of London have the morals of sewer rats is to be extremely unkind to our little rodent friends. But this is the clincher. As a direct result of the greed and treason of the British private bankers in preventing the continuance of the Bradbury Treasury Notes, Britain’s National Debt went up from £650 million in 1914 to a staggering £7,500 million in 1919.
And this is where it all gets particularly interesting. The following is an extract from the official and current HM Treasury’s Debt Management Office website ... and it appears to be completely at odds with the account given by the Rt. Hon. Thomas Johnston.
“
The threat of World War One pushed British banks into crisis; exacerbated further as half the world's trade was financed by British banks and as a consequence international payments dried up. In response to this crisis, John Maynard Keynes (the renowned economist), persuaded the Chancellor Lloyd George to use the Bank of England's gold reserves to support the banks, which ended the immediate crisis. Keynes stayed with the Treasury until 1919. The war years of 1914-18 had seen an increase in the National Debt from £650 million at the start of the war to £7,500 million by 1919. This ensured that the Treasury developed new expertise in foreign exchange, currency, credit and price control skills and were put to use in the management of the post-war economy. The slump of the 1930s necessitated the restructuring of the economy following World War II (the national debt stood at £21 billion by its end) and the emphasis was placed on economic planning and financial relations.
Why is there is no mention whatsoever of the £300 million of Bradbury debt-free paper Treasury Notes issued in 1914? Instead, it says Lloyd George, on the advice of John Maynard Keynes, used the Bank of England’s gold reserves which, according to Johnston, only amounted to £9 million. What is going on here? Who is telling the truth? Could it be that HM Government, the puppets of the City of London, don’t want you to know about the simple but effective concept of debt-free and interest-free Treasury Notes?
What Do The System-serving Politicians And "Economists" Say About The issuance Of Treasury Notes?
As soon as the concept of the debt-free and interest-free Greenback Dollar (and now the Bradbury Pound) is raised in polite conversation with either a politician or an economist, two immediate knee jerk verbal reactions occur from these system-servers.
The first is to say that if a government suddenly starts printing its own money through its treasury based on the credit and wealth of the country, instead of going through its central bank, we would be heading towards what happened in the Weimar Republic in Germany in the early 1920s where hyperinflation spiralled out of control and a loaf of bread was bought with a barrow load of almost worthless paper money.
To this I just say look again at what actually happened in Germany at that time. It was not the Weimar’s treasury but it was the privately controlled central bank, the Reichsbank, who was printing the money, coupled with the extreme actions of currency speculators and foreign investors that caused all of the problems.
Hyperinflation could not happen as a result of the Bradbury Pound, because the democratically elected government would actually ‘govern’ ... now that is novel! Speculation would be prevented, and most importantly, the newly created money would be spent on a productive economy, rather than bankers bonuses.
The second reaction from system-servers is that the country is already printing its own money – it is called Quantative Easing, that mysterious cash injection into the economy which only seems to get as far as the banks and not to where it is actually needed. Only trouble is, it is the Bank of England doing the printing and not HM Treasury. Based around government issued Bonds (promissory notes based on the wealth of the nation), this complex process only increases the National Debt and it certainly doesn’t solve anything.
The simple truth is that people who serve the system and who have been ‘educated’ by such organisations as the Fabian inspired London School of Economics (LSE), are not suddenly going to bite the hand that gives them a very good living.
The Great War And The Debt-free Bradbury Treasury Note:
Three weeks ago, as part of my ongoing research into the banking elite, I came across a fascinating book entitled The Financiers and the Nation by the Rt. Hon. Thomas Johnston, P.C., ex-Lord Privy Seal. It was written in 1934 and republished in 1994 by Ossian Publishers Ltd.
The text of this quite remarkable and rare book is available here.
In Chapter 6, entitled ‘Usury on the Great War’, I’ve selected the following paragraphs which I believe are both shocking and self-explanatory:
“
WHEN the whistle blew for the start of the Great War in August 1914 the Bank of England possessed only nine millions sterling of a gold reserve, and, as the Bank of England was the Bankers' Bank, this sum constituted the effective reserve of all the other Banking Institutions in Great Britain.
The bank managers at the outbreak of War were seriously afraid that the depositing public, in a panic, would demand the return of their money. And, inasmuch as the deposits and savings left in the hands of the bankers by the depositing public had very largely been sunk by the bankers in enterprises which, at the best, could not repay the borrowed capital quickly, and which in several and large-scale instances were likely to be submerged altogether in the stress of war and in the collapse of great areas of international trade, it followed that if there were a widespread panicky run upon the banks, the banks would be unable to pay and the whole credit system would collapse, to the ruin of millions of people.
Private enterprise banking thus being on the verge of collapse, the Government (Mr. Lloyd George at the time was Chancellor of the Exchequer) hurriedly declared a moratorium, i.e. it authorized the banks not to pay out (which in any event the banks could not do), and it extended the August Bank Holiday for another three days. During these three or four days when the banks and stock exchanges were closed, the bankers held anxious negotiation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. And one of them has placed upon record the fact that 'he (Mr. George) did everything that we asked him to do.' When the banks reopened, the public discovered that, instead of getting their money back in gold, they were paid in a new legal tender of Treasury notes (the £1 notes in black and the 10s. notes in red colours). This new currency had been issued by the State, was backed by the credit of the State, and was issued to the banks to prevent the banks from utter collapse. The public cheerfully accepted the new notes; and nobody talked about inflation.
To return, however, to the early war period, no sooner had Mr. Lloyd George got the bankers out of their difficulties in the autumn of 1914 by the issue of the Treasury money, than they were round again at the Treasury door explaining forcibly that the State must, upon no account, issue any more money on this interest free basis; if the war was to be run, it must be run with borrowed money, money upon which interest must be paid, and they were the gentlemen who would see to the proper financing of a good, juicy War Loan at 31/2 per cent, interest, and to that last proposition the Treasury yielded. The War was not to be fought with interest-free money, and/or/with conscription of wealth; though it was to be fought with conscription of life. Many small businesses were to be closed and their proprietors sent overseas as redundant, and without any compensation for their losses, while Finance, as we shall see, was to be heavily and progressively remunerated.
Emergency Bradbury Treasury Notes (printed only on one side)
The real values of the private bankers and the City of London have been exposed for all to see. Whilst hundreds of thousands of British soldiers were dying on the killing fields of Flanders and elsewhere doing what they saw as their patriotic duty, British bankers, safely out of danger and not sharing the appalling conditions on the Western Front, were only interested in one thing – how to make obscene profits from Britain’s desperate efforts to win the war. To say that the private bankers and the City of London have the morals of sewer rats is to be extremely unkind to our little rodent friends. But this is the clincher. As a direct result of the greed and treason of the British private bankers in preventing the continuance of the Bradbury Treasury Notes, Britain’s National Debt went up from £650 million in 1914 to a staggering £7,500 million in 1919.
And this is where it all gets particularly interesting. The following is an extract from the official and current HM Treasury’s Debt Management Office website ... and it appears to be completely at odds with the account given by the Rt. Hon. Thomas Johnston.
“
The threat of World War One pushed British banks into crisis; exacerbated further as half the world's trade was financed by British banks and as a consequence international payments dried up. In response to this crisis, John Maynard Keynes (the renowned economist), persuaded the Chancellor Lloyd George to use the Bank of England's gold reserves to support the banks, which ended the immediate crisis. Keynes stayed with the Treasury until 1919. The war years of 1914-18 had seen an increase in the National Debt from £650 million at the start of the war to £7,500 million by 1919. This ensured that the Treasury developed new expertise in foreign exchange, currency, credit and price control skills and were put to use in the management of the post-war economy. The slump of the 1930s necessitated the restructuring of the economy following World War II (the national debt stood at £21 billion by its end) and the emphasis was placed on economic planning and financial relations.
Why is there is no mention whatsoever of the £300 million of Bradbury debt-free paper Treasury Notes issued in 1914? Instead, it says Lloyd George, on the advice of John Maynard Keynes, used the Bank of England’s gold reserves which, according to Johnston, only amounted to £9 million. What is going on here? Who is telling the truth? Could it be that HM Government, the puppets of the City of London, don’t want you to know about the simple but effective concept of debt-free and interest-free Treasury Notes?
What Do The System-serving Politicians And "Economists" Say About The issuance Of Treasury Notes?
As soon as the concept of the debt-free and interest-free Greenback Dollar (and now the Bradbury Pound) is raised in polite conversation with either a politician or an economist, two immediate knee jerk verbal reactions occur from these system-servers.
The first is to say that if a government suddenly starts printing its own money through its treasury based on the credit and wealth of the country, instead of going through its central bank, we would be heading towards what happened in the Weimar Republic in Germany in the early 1920s where hyperinflation spiralled out of control and a loaf of bread was bought with a barrow load of almost worthless paper money.
To this I just say look again at what actually happened in Germany at that time. It was not the Weimar’s treasury but it was the privately controlled central bank, the Reichsbank, who was printing the money, coupled with the extreme actions of currency speculators and foreign investors that caused all of the problems.
Hyperinflation could not happen as a result of the Bradbury Pound, because the democratically elected government would actually ‘govern’ ... now that is novel! Speculation would be prevented, and most importantly, the newly created money would be spent on a productive economy, rather than bankers bonuses.
The second reaction from system-servers is that the country is already printing its own money – it is called Quantative Easing, that mysterious cash injection into the economy which only seems to get as far as the banks and not to where it is actually needed. Only trouble is, it is the Bank of England doing the printing and not HM Treasury. Based around government issued Bonds (promissory notes based on the wealth of the nation), this complex process only increases the National Debt and it certainly doesn’t solve anything.
The simple truth is that people who serve the system and who have been ‘educated’ by such organisations as the Fabian inspired London School of Economics (LSE), are not suddenly going to bite the hand that gives them a very good living.
CHoff
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
A man who is not clear on the concept. Paper money is debt.Teahive wrote:If the choice of attainable policy is between printing money and issuing debt, I know where my preference lies.hanelyp wrote:Anyone who thinks that would be a good idea should be allowed nowhere near handling other people's money.choff wrote:More people in the banking profession are talking about having the government directly print money and distribute it ... , as an attempt to get the economy going again.
And the inflation it eventually causes is a general tax.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
Guernsey Island reduced it's debt by printing money to pay for public works instead of borrowing, no inflation because the GDP expanded as a result and was able to absorb the new currency. For years economists couldn't understand why of old China had no inflation when the supply of gold coins increased, until they figured out the economy had increased in proportion to the money supply. Likewise Canada had no second world war debt, all paid for with printed money. If you use the printed money in a way to expand the economy in proportion with the money supply you have no inflation, and you do not increase debt. Remember, there is no interest charge applied to the printed money, it's not a loan, or IOU, or a borrowing.
The fun part is that the government will create a fraction of the new money by printing than neighbouring countries that borrow with compound interest charges. So when your currency increases in value compared to the borrowing trade partners, your government can offset the increase by printing even more and using it to pay down national debt accrued from before the printing policy. This in turn makes your economy even more attractive to investors, reduces interest rates for private transactions that don't have to compete for credit with the government, a virtuous cycle. Another term for it is positive money, or debt free money.
The problem we face is that the people in charge are a bunch of kleptos, and no matter what they try to fix things they'll only plunder it to ruin.
The fun part is that the government will create a fraction of the new money by printing than neighbouring countries that borrow with compound interest charges. So when your currency increases in value compared to the borrowing trade partners, your government can offset the increase by printing even more and using it to pay down national debt accrued from before the printing policy. This in turn makes your economy even more attractive to investors, reduces interest rates for private transactions that don't have to compete for credit with the government, a virtuous cycle. Another term for it is positive money, or debt free money.
The problem we face is that the people in charge are a bunch of kleptos, and no matter what they try to fix things they'll only plunder it to ruin.
CHoff
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
Inflation is a function of the amount of money bidding on assets. If you raise the amount of money bidding on a fixed amount of assets the price goes up. You can't govern that without telling every one how to spend and on what. Wage and price controls.Hyperinflation could not happen as a result of the Bradbury Pound, because the democratically elected government would actually ‘govern’ ... now that is novel! Speculation would be prevented, and most importantly, the newly created money would be spent on a productive economy, rather than bankers bonuses.
BTW what does "Democratically elected" have to do with speculation?
OK. If I can have "Democratically elected money" I would want to be able to purchase a years worth of goods for an hour of labor. What could be more Democratic than that? How about a years worth of goods for no labor? What do the producers get for their effort? All the money they want. Is a trillion dollar bill too much to ask for a slice of bread? Depends on the state of hunger.
In any case the American government could pay off its debt with money left over by printing 20 trillion dollar bills. Or 20,000 billion dollar bills. Or 20,000,000 million dollar bills. Democratically. I'll bet I could get that job bid out for under a pound or two of gold. Or maybe by letting the printer print a few extra bills for himself. Strictly controlled of course.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
The concept of democratically elected money is that instead of private monopoly creation of money supply/interest rates the democratically elected government would fix the money supply and interest rates in open forum for all to see and for the benefit of the general public. If you are a private central banker you and your pals are the ultimate inside traders. You can manipulate boom bust cycles and interest rates to concentrate wealth into your hot little hands. You end up owning the politicians/media/intelligence agencies/police/economists. You become reckless and drunk with power, when you screw things up, you tell the politicians to hand revenue directly to your bank so you can loan it back to the government at a higher rate than they gave it to you. When the collected revenue isn't enough you tell them to print more and give it to you for free so you can loan it back to them at a higher rate.
CHoff
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
Yes.The problem we face is that the people in charge are a bunch of kleptos, and no matter what they try to fix things they'll only plunder it to ruin.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
Only one thing wrong with your thesis. It assumes honest politicians.choff wrote:The concept of democratically elected money is that instead of private monopoly creation of money supply/interest rates the democratically elected government would fix the money supply and interest rates in open forum for all to see and for the benefit of the general public. If you are a private central banker you and your pals are the ultimate inside traders. You can manipulate boom bust cycles and interest rates to concentrate wealth into your hot little hands. You end up owning the politicians/media/intelligence agencies/police/economists. You become reckless and drunk with power, when you screw things up, you tell the politicians to hand revenue directly to your bank so you can loan it back to the government at a higher rate than they gave it to you. When the collected revenue isn't enough you tell them to print more and give it to you for free so you can loan it back to them at a higher rate.
Re: money and inflation. Take a look at the inflation an influx of gold caused Spain.
Now if you can match money supply to production - fine. But there are people involved. People with limited knowledge. There is no perfect system.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
I am clear on the concept. Paper money is only debt because the money issuing central bank in many economies is set up that way. Not because it must be so. I considered adding a comment in that direction but considered it unnecessary. My mistake.MSimon wrote:A man who is not clear on the concept. Paper money is debt.
And the inflation it eventually causes is a general tax.
And yes, it's a tax.
Inflation can of course happen, the same way it happens now. Hyperinflation would mean printing money way out of line, but in that case you'd at least have some kind of feedback mechanism where such a government has a hard time getting re-elected. That doesn't really happen with a debt mountain - until it blows up.MSimon wrote:Inflation is a function of the amount of money bidding on assets. If you raise the amount of money bidding on a fixed amount of assets the price goes up. You can't govern that without telling every one how to spend and on what. Wage and price controls.Hyperinflation could not happen as a result of the Bradbury Pound, because the democratically elected government would actually ‘govern’ ... now that is novel! Speculation would be prevented, and most importantly, the newly created money would be spent on a productive economy, rather than bankers bonuses.
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
I remember from a history education show that in colonial America the supply of gold and silver coinage was short, a result of British policies requiring colonists to leave their bullion currency on deposit when they left for the colonies. To deal with this shortage of hard money, merchants commonly bought cash crops from farmers on credit, backed by a promise that the credit could be redeemed against the story inventory. This store credit could also be traded with other colonists for various goods and services. In effect, the merchants were issuing currency, backed by their own good credit. By all accounts I've seen this privately issued money worked well. Trouble arises when the entity issuing currency can do so without bounds or credible backing.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
Compare that to a government issuing bonds. They're backed by the power of government to extract tax revenue from the populace. But as that's unpopular, government after government simply passes on a debt burden. That works for a while, then debt service starts to take over a significant chunk of the budget, and at some point the realization dawns that the power to tax is actually limited. But there's no short term feedback loop that would lead to governments being held responsible for the debt they piled up.
Re: The Magnitude Of The Problem
My understanding was that the American revolution was triggered when the British insisted the colonies only use gold currency, and not the colonial script. During the revolution America had hyperinflation because two British warships armed with printing presses were counterfeiting the colonial script like crazy.
CHoff